Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-09-20
"Retnrninp Reaeon

MAHOSE!
Returning Reason
The CoUricr-Journoi did not in the
years gone by do us the honor to read
cur editorials, or it would not labor
under the impression that We have
varied even SO much as a hairs breadth
from the position we have occupied
ever since VIC became the editor Of this
paper. We state this fact because orr
Louisville contemporary INDUCES IN
tho following reflection upon orr con
sistency. IL says:
eve are glad to SEQ in the columns
Of the Richmond Dispatch evidences
of returning reason on the tariff ques-
ton. 1t is long way yet from the
light of day, but there seems to be "A
dim Consciousness that il has wandered
far from the true path, and it is
evidently seeking short cut home"
As the paragraph alluded to by the
Couricr-JourBm has been accepted 10y
some papers in Virginia as teaching
sound doctrine, and as that psper seems
TO consider it passable doctrine as
coming from a Virgin Democrat, we
once more reproduce it--as follows:
Owe object as strenuously as our cor
respondent to repeating the internal
revenue laws as all excuse TO keeping
up the war tariff. We have often con
tended that the abolition Of all internal
taxCswould neccssitatc a revision OF the
tariff, since it 10 certain that a high
tariff does not always yield moro reye-
nue. than lower One-a 'ludlclOus
one. Tho Government receives more
money now from the tax OH whis-
key than 1t did when the tax was
twice rs high as it is now. so as to Gus
toms duties Double the tariff on some
articles, and the Government will de
rive no revenue whatever from them.
They will ceate to be brought into the
country. We could look over the ex-
isiing tariff and point ont number of
such articles 1t must follow, nccessa
rily, therefore. that to lower the Gus
toms duties on certain articles would
he TO add to the revenues of the Gov
eminent. If a tariff Of IS per cent.
| nd r0lCrcm would exclude an article
frsm this country, and therefore de-
strOy all revenue from it, whereas a
tariff u 30 per cent dd uGiOrcm would
inspire its importation, and, therefore,
"A revenue from it, then it is clear that
Tie lower and not the higher tariff
would in every such case be the reve
nue. tariff. We need n revenue tariff.
Let us abolish all internal taxes, there
fore, and make a revenue tariff.
The CoWiCr-J0UrHai finds in the
Above paragraph "mcntal confusion Of
the worst kind" but it forgot TO point
out wherein the evidence Of the "men-
tai confusion WAS to be found. We
make bold to say that there is not one
statement in the paragraph which can
10 successfully assailed, unless indeed
those statements can be set aside 10y
such an argument as the following.
Tie Co'VjoT-J0urn0 says:
1T wants the whiskey-tax abolished
in order 10 force "a reduction of pro-
hibitiyo taxes TO a revenue standard.
The result might be that if We began
after the abolition of the whiskey tax
TO reduce duties III order to derive
greater revenues We would within twelve
months find ourselves back to the
Walker tariff Of 1916
Wonderful If the Democrats in
Congress are such fools as that para
graph implies that they are, it would
10 better for them not TO tackle the
tsrif' problem st all
However, it is not i!aportant to re-
ute or Louisville contemporary az
gumentS, or rather So deny the truth OF
to tfiimaticns, when It gives such
signs Of returning reason rs are
found in the following outgiyings. We
quote:
A few days later the Richmond
wing follows somewhat the same line,
even yielding portion OF Firglnla'S
demands for the entire abolition OF tie
revenue tax. 1t says;
"in general. tho Democratic party may he
TO kCuod Gs ln favor Of repeating the Internal
revenue tax on tobacco, Of reducing duties on
imports, 81 snlSrsug the free list, oi refusing
ltunties e. m1nOi oilse. 81 The SlWc tine not
destroy Ing legitimate mi lsiIies. There ought
| 70 be union ~ all Demo rats in the next Con-
grSsE on something ike his policy. such union
will result 10 the ena-tinsnt or revenue
measure hat will cut down The surplus. help
tie Taxpayers, and elect Dem0crat.c Prosi-
deKt next year
There can be the heartiest union on
such policy. 1t is exactly in accord
with what Mr.. Carlisle suggested last
May when in attendance on the Ken
tucky convention. 1t is the plan Colo
mel Breckenridge, of Kentucky, sug
0ested in his letter to the st. Louis
RepubijcoR.
"Repesl the tax on tobacco.
"Reduce the duty on imports.
Enlarge the free list.
REFUSE bountiGs to monopolies, but
destroy no legitimate interest.
No one asks more than this. 1t Is
the only plan by which it is possible to
Cut down the surplus;
Help the taxpayers;
Elect q Democratic President next
year.
Now, then, let it be understood that
Mr.. WArrRRsoN is willing to abolish
the tax on tobacco, as we'll as to do the
other things to which his paper pledges
him, and that he speaks for his party,
and there will be no longer any good
reason for two factions in the Demo-
cratic party owing their existence to
differences OF opinion on the tariff
question.
Tho Baltimore Sun, in reviewing the
| incidents Of the constitutional centen-
nisl, gives the SHERMANs, the FoRi-